OAKLAND — Faced with rapidly diminishing demand for coal in the U.S., Utah has approved a $53 million investment in an Oakland shipping terminal nearing construction with the hopes of exporting it to less environmentally stringent markets overseas.

The move has enraged environmental groups.

Earlier this month, Utah’s Community Impact Fund Board approved the investment in Oakland’s Terminal Logistics Solutions on behalf of four counties, three of which produce all the coal in the state.

Terminal Logistics will start building the $250 million Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal at the Oakland Global Trade & Logistics Center later this year and hopes to finish the 35 acre project in 2017.

“We know Oakland doesn’t want coal coming through the city,” said Jess Dervin-Ackerman, conservation manager for the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club. “We’re ramping down the use of coal in the U.S. because we recognize it’s a horrible source of pollution, and it contributes to climate change. This is city-owned land, and to us, it’s the responsibility of the city to not let coal be exported.”

But Phil Tagami, the city designated developer of the project, said his seven years of approvals and environmental entitlements secured to develop the former Oakland Army Base allows him to lease the space to a private company who can export just about anything except “nuclear waste, illegal immigrants, weapons and drugs.”

“It’s not for me to determine,” Tagami said. “We are entitled to have a bulk commodities terminal and beyond that it’s up to the market to determine what we export.”

Tagami said environmentalists opposed to coal exports are focusing on the wrong thing.

“If people took a hard look at the household products they have under their sinks, they would freak out if they saw things like ammonia and chlorine in 55 gallon drums or in a rail tank car,” he said.

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said she opposes the export of coal from Oakland. While on the City Council last May, she voted in favor of a resolution opposing the transportation of coal and crude oil through the city.

“Obviously, we’re going to work with our business partners to try and reach a mutually acceptable way of moving forward,” Schaaf said. “This is a very important project for the city of Oakland, and this policy resolution is important also.”

Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy program director for WildEarth Guardians, which is fighting expansion of coal mining rights on federal land in Utah, called the state’s investment in the Oakland export terminal a “misguided last ditch effort to keep their industry alive.”

“If we are serious about cutting carbon emissions, we have to do more than cap carbon at the smoke stack,” Nichols said. “We can’t just ship it to someone else’s back yard. That doesn’t solve our climate problem. You factor in the carbon impact of shipping it by rail and then boating it oversees and that’s extremely energy intensive. It’s the last thing we should be doing.”

In return for Utah’s investment in Oakland, Utah will get a guaranteed share of the annual tons of goods going through the bulk shipping terminal. In addition to coal, Utah could also use it to export potash, limestone, salt and hay cubes.

Utah is the country’s 14th largest coal producer in the United States with about 16 million tons each year. Mines in three of the four counties awarded the money to invest in the Oakland facility; Carbon, Emery and Sevier produce all the coal in the state.

Coal mines in Utah are facing extinction if they don’t find international markets for it, as domestic power plants switch over to natural gas or close due to upcoming federal regulations.

“We’re seeing power plants switching over to natural gas or closing because pollution control for coal fired plants is too expensive,” said Dave Tabet, energy and program manager for the Utah Geological Survey. “It was always a hope there would be a market in Asia because there is tremendous demand over there.”

Of the 16 million tons of coal produced in Utah each year, only about 1 million tons is currently exported internationally, Tabet said. Those exports currently go through the Port of Stockton, a privately-owned port in Richmond called Levin-Richmond Terminal Corporation and through the Port of Long Beach, he said.

The Levin-Richmond Terminal in Richmond currently exports 1.2 million tons of coal a year from Colorado and Utah, a spokeswoman said.

In Utah, the Community Impact Fund Board, under the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development, approved the investment with no written reports or studies, just the oral testimony of officials in the four counties requesting the money. County representatives told the board the money needed to be approved quickly with a June deadline to sign agreements with Terminal Logistics Solutions.

Casey Hopes, an elected commissioner from Carbon County which produces seven million tons of coal a year, said exporting coal to international markets would help keep rural communities alive.

“I’m really excited about the possibilities of working with the city of Oakland to help solidify our jobs in our communities,” Hopes said. “And that’s what it boils down to: the people we’re trying to keep employed. It’s important we help rural communities stay alive.”

He said he is angry the federal government is “regulating the coal industry out of business,” and that power plants would do a more efficient job at regulating emissions if the government let it alone.

Jerry Bridges, president of Terminal Logistics Solutions, said the deal with Utah is still being negotiated. He said any product moved into the facility will be covered, so if it’s coal there won’t be coal dust blowing around from Utah to Oakland in open railroad cars.

“None of it will ever see the light of day,” Bridges said. “I’m not in the business of defending coal, I’m just saying if coal is a commodity that we allow through this facility, it’s the cleanest coal available in the world marketplace. We want to make this terminal the most efficient, the most environmentally friendly one there is, so we don’t get sideways with the environmental community. We want to make money, but we want to minimize the impacts on the environment.”

Asked about the outcry from environmentalists Bridges said: “That’s not my ax to grind. My deal is just to move it from Point A to Point B.”

Gordon Walker, the chair of the Community Impacts Fund Board in Utah and director of the state Housing and Community Development Department who is in favor of exporting Utah coal overseas, said he would not want to deny people in foreign countries a source for producing energy.

“Of course I’m concerned about climate change,” Walker said. “I love to go hiking, but I also know what it means to live with power and what it means to live without power. It’s hard for me that one group wants to deny someone else something we already have. I struggle with that.”

OAKLAND — Faced with rapidly diminishing demand for coal in the U.S., Utah has approved a $53 million investment in an Oakland shipping terminal nearing construction with the hopes of exporting it to less environmentally stringent markets overseas.

The move has enraged environmental groups.

Earlier this month, Utah’s Community Impact Fund Board approved the investment in Oakland’s Terminal Logistics Solutions on behalf of four counties, three of which produce all the coal in the state.

Terminal Logistics will start building the $250 million Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal at the Oakland Global Trade & Logistics Center later this year and hopes to finish the 35 acre project in 2017.

“We know Oakland doesn’t want coal coming through the city,” said Jess Dervin-Ackerman, conservation manager for the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club. “We’re ramping down the use of coal in the U.S. because we recognize it’s a horrible source of pollution, and it contributes to climate change. This is city-owned land, and to us, it’s the responsibility of the city to not let coal be exported.”

But Phil Tagami, the city designated developer of the project, said his seven years of approvals and environmental entitlements secured to develop the former Oakland Army Base allows him to lease the space to a private company who can export just about anything except “nuclear waste, illegal immigrants, weapons and drugs.”

“It’s not for me to determine,” Tagami said. “We are entitled to have a bulk commodities terminal and beyond that it’s up to the market to determine what we export.”

Tagami said environmentalists opposed to coal exports are focusing on the wrong thing.

“If people took a hard look at the household products they have under their sinks, they would freak out if they saw things like ammonia and chlorine in 55 gallon drums or in a rail tank car,” he said.

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said she opposes the export of coal from Oakland. While on the City Council last May, she voted in favor of a resolution opposing the transportation of coal and crude oil through the city.

“Obviously, we’re going to work with our business partners to try and reach a mutually acceptable way of moving forward,” Schaaf said. “This is a very important project for the city of Oakland, and this policy resolution is important also.”

Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy program director for WildEarth Guardians, which is fighting expansion of coal mining rights on federal land in Utah, called the state’s investment in the Oakland export terminal a “misguided last ditch effort to keep their industry alive.”

“If we are serious about cutting carbon emissions, we have to do more than cap carbon at the smoke stack,” Nichols said. “We can’t just ship it to someone else’s back yard. That doesn’t solve our climate problem. You factor in the carbon impact of shipping it by rail and then boating it oversees and that’s extremely energy intensive. It’s the last thing we should be doing.”

In return for Utah’s investment in Oakland, Utah will get a guaranteed share of the annual tons of goods going through the bulk shipping terminal. In addition to coal, Utah could also use it to export potash, limestone, salt and hay cubes.

Utah is the country’s 14th largest coal producer in the United States with about 16 million tons each year. Mines in three of the four counties awarded the money to invest in the Oakland facility; Carbon, Emery and Sevier produce all the coal in the state.

Coal mines in Utah are facing extinction if they don’t find international markets for it, as domestic power plants switch over to natural gas or close due to upcoming federal regulations.

“We’re seeing power plants switching over to natural gas or closing because pollution control for coal fired plants is too expensive,” said Dave Tabet, energy and program manager for the Utah Geological Survey. “It was always a hope there would be a market in Asia because there is tremendous demand over there.”

Of the 16 million tons of coal produced in Utah each year, only about 1 million tons is currently exported internationally, Tabet said. Those exports currently go through the Port of Stockton, a privately-owned port in Richmond called Levin-Richmond Terminal Corporation and through the Port of Long Beach, he said.

The Levin-Richmond Terminal in Richmond currently exports 1.2 million tons of coal a year from Colorado and Utah, a spokeswoman said.

In Utah, the Community Impact Fund Board, under the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development, approved the investment with no written reports or studies, just the oral testimony of officials in the four counties requesting the money. County representatives told the board the money needed to be approved quickly with a June deadline to sign agreements with Terminal Logistics Solutions.

Casey Hopes, an elected commissioner from Carbon County which produces seven million tons of coal a year, said exporting coal to international markets would help keep rural communities alive.

“I’m really excited about the possibilities of working with the city of Oakland to help solidify our jobs in our communities,” Hopes said. “And that’s what it boils down to: the people we’re trying to keep employed. It’s important we help rural communities stay alive.”

He said he is angry the federal government is “regulating the coal industry out of business,” and that power plants would do a more efficient job at regulating emissions if the government let it alone.

Jerry Bridges, president of Terminal Logistics Solutions, said the deal with Utah is still being negotiated. He said any product moved into the facility will be covered, so if it’s coal there won’t be coal dust blowing around from Utah to Oakland in open railroad cars.

“None of it will ever see the light of day,” Bridges said. “I’m not in the business of defending coal, I’m just saying if coal is a commodity that we allow through this facility, it’s the cleanest coal available in the world marketplace. We want to make this terminal the most efficient, the most environmentally friendly one there is, so we don’t get sideways with the environmental community. We want to make money, but we want to minimize the impacts on the environment.”

Asked about the outcry from environmentalists Bridges said: “That’s not my ax to grind. My deal is just to move it from Point A to Point B.”

Gordon Walker, the chair of the Community Impacts Fund Board in Utah and director of the state Housing and Community Development Department who is in favor of exporting Utah coal overseas, said he would not want to deny people in foreign countries a source for producing energy.

“Of course I’m concerned about climate change,” Walker said. “I love to go hiking, but I also know what it means to live with power and what it means to live without power. It’s hard for me that one group wants to deny someone else something we already have. I struggle with that.”